IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/clj/noecrw/v1y2017i1p83-94.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic Performance Evaluation of European Union Countries by Topsis Method

Author

Listed:
  • Mahmut MASCA

    (Afyon Kocatepe University, Turkey)

Abstract

In this study, an economic performance evaluation of European Union (EU) Countries has been made by a TOPSIS (Technique for Order Priority of Similarity by Information System) method which is based on Multi Criteria Decision Making (MDCM) approach by six macro-economic data of 28 EU countries. The data belong to year of 2015. TOPSIS method has been applied for the ranking of the countries for 2015. To assess the performance of economies, six macroeconomic indicators, four of which are Maastricht criteria are used: long-term interest rates, general government deficit (-) and surplus (+) (as percentage of GDP), general government gross debt (as percentage of GDP), inflation rate, gross fixed capital formation (as percentage of GDP) and unemployment rate. The results show that Sweden had best economic performance and Greece had the worst performance in 2015.

Suggested Citation

  • Mahmut MASCA, 2017. "Economic Performance Evaluation of European Union Countries by Topsis Method," North Economic Review, Technical University of Cluj Napoca, Department of Economics and Physics, vol. 1(1), pages 83-94, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:clj:noecrw:v:1:y:2017:i:1:p:83-94
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ner.cunbm.utcluj.ro/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/NER-2017.8.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Adam P. Balcerzak & Michal Bernard Pietrzak, 2016. "Application of TOPSIS Method for Analysis of Sustainable Development in European Union Countries," Chapters, in: T. Loster & T. Pavelka (ed.),The 10th International Days of Statistics and Economics. Conference Proceedings. September 8-10, 2016, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 9, pages 82-92, Institute of Economic Research.
    2. Cheng-Min Feng & Rong-Tsu Wang, 2001. "Considering the financial ratios on the performance evaluation of highway bus industry," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(4), pages 449-467, January.
    3. Lai, Young-Jou & Liu, Ting-Yun & Hwang, Ching-Lai, 1994. "TOPSIS for MODM," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 76(3), pages 486-500, August.
    4. Kim, Gyutai & Park, Chan S. & Yoon, K. Paul, 1997. "Identifying investment opportunities for advanced manufacturing systems with comparative-integrated performance measurement," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 23-33, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Halil Kete & Fatih Karasaç, 2022. "Evaluation of the Economic Performances of the European Union Countries and Turkey in the Covid-19 Process with the COPRAS Method," Journal of Economic Policy Researches, Istanbul University, Faculty of Economics, vol. 9(2), pages 373-395, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Olga Porro & Francesc Pardo-Bosch & Núria Agell & Mónica Sánchez, 2020. "Understanding Location Decisions of Energy Multinational Enterprises within the European Smart Cities’ Context: An Integrated AHP and Extended Fuzzy Linguistic TOPSIS Method," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-29, May.
    2. Mohammed Said Obeidat & Tarek Qasim & Aseel Khanfar, 2018. "Implementing the AHP multi-criteria decision approach in buying an apartment in Jordan," Journal of Property Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(1), pages 53-71, January.
    3. Sandhya Dixit & Tilak Raj, 2018. "A Hybrid MADM Approach for the Evaluation of Different Material Handling Issues in Flexible Manufacturing Systems," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-19, November.
    4. Wenyao Niu & Yuan Rong & Liying Yu & Lu Huang, 2022. "A Novel Hybrid Group Decision Making Approach Based on EDAS and Regret Theory under a Fermatean Cubic Fuzzy Environment," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(17), pages 1-30, August.
    5. Mohammad Reza Salehizadeh & Mahdi Amidi Koohbijari & Hassan Nouri & Akın Taşcıkaraoğlu & Ozan Erdinç & João P. S. Catalão, 2019. "Bi-Objective Optimization Model for Optimal Placement of Thyristor-Controlled Series Compensator Devices," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-16, July.
    6. Aleksandra Matuszewska-Janica & Dorota Żebrowska-Suchodolska & Urszula Ala-Karvia & Marta Hozer-Koćmiel, 2021. "Changes in Electricity Production from Renewable Energy Sources in the European Union Countries in 2005–2019," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-27, October.
    7. Hyungjin Shin & Gyumin Lee & Jaenam Lee & Sehoon Kim & Inhong Song, 2023. "Assessment of Agricultural Drought Vulnerability with Focus on Upland Fields and Identification of Primary Management Areas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-16, February.
    8. Weiwei Li & Pingtao Yi & Danning Zhang, 2018. "Sustainability Evaluation of Cities in Northeastern China Using Dynamic TOPSIS-Entropy Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-15, December.
    9. Almoghathawi, Yasser & Barker, Kash & Rocco, Claudio M. & Nicholson, Charles D., 2017. "A multi-criteria decision analysis approach for importance identification and ranking of network components," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 142-151.
    10. Łatuszyńska Anna, 2014. "Multiple-Criteria Decision Analysis Using Topsis Method For Interval Data In Research Into The Level Of Information Society Development," Folia Oeconomica Stetinensia, Sciendo, vol. 13(2), pages 1-14, July.
    11. Prabhat Kumar & Puneet Tandon, 2019. "A paradigm for customer-driven product design approach using extended axiomatic design," Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 589-603, February.
    12. Rihab Khemiri & Khaoula Elbedoui-Maktouf & Bernard Grabot & Belhassen Zouari, 2017. "A fuzzy multi-criteria decision making approach for managing performance and risk in integrated procurement-production planning," Post-Print hal-01758604, HAL.
    13. Huiru Zhao & Nana Li, 2016. "Performance Evaluation for Sustainability of Strong Smart Grid by Using Stochastic AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-22, January.
    14. Shin-Liang Chan & Wann-Ming Wey & Pin-Huai Chang, 2014. "Establishing Disaster Resilience Indicators for Tan-sui River Basin in Taiwan," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 115(1), pages 387-418, January.
    15. Askarany, Davood & Yazdifar, Hassan, 2012. "An investigation into the mixed reported adoption rates for ABC: Evidence from Australia, New Zealand and the UK," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(1), pages 430-439.
    16. Ishizaka, Alessio & Nemery, Philippe & Lidouh, Karim, 2013. "Location selection for the construction of a casino in the Greater London region: A triple multi-criteria approach," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 211-220.
    17. Nishat Alam Choudhary & Shalabh Singh & Tobias Schoenherr & M. Ramkumar, 2023. "Risk assessment in supply chains: a state-of-the-art review of methodologies and their applications," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 322(2), pages 565-607, March.
    18. Kuo, Ting, 2017. "A modified TOPSIS with a different ranking index," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 260(1), pages 152-160.
    19. Wang, Rong-Tsu & Ho, Chien-Ta & Feng, Cheng-Min & Yang, Yung-Kai, 2004. "A comparative analysis of the operational performance of Taiwan's major airports," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 10(5), pages 353-360.
    20. Hong Li & Zilin Chen, 2022. "A Comprehensive Evaluation Framework to Assess the Sustainable Development of Schools within a University: Application to a Chinese University," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-12, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    European Union; Maastricht Criteria; TOPSIS Method; Multi Criteria Decision Making Techniques;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C13 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Estimation: General
    • C44 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics - - - Operations Research; Statistical Decision Theory
    • F15 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Economic Integration

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:clj:noecrw:v:1:y:2017:i:1:p:83-94. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Izabela Luiza Pop (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deubmro.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.